*exhales* ok so! Gonna make one big thread about this, then mute the others so I stop thinking constantly about this.

So autism representation in film and TV, as of right now: It’s bad. Just, in general! It’s pretty not good.

Autistic TV and film characters generally speaking are almost always white, straight, cis dudes, with the occasional white, cis, straight woman character, struggling because of their autism, or their caretaker struggling with them

We get the occasional departure from this in one flavor or another (EGBO’s bi main character and girlfriend, for example, or that one Dakota Fanning film about an autistic person following their special interest) but like, as a whole-that’s the landscape we are in.

This has a lot of obvious problems. Autism isn’t inherent just white people, or dudes. I’ve yet to see an autistic trans character depicted (which is just...not realistic).

So, start there. There’s also the fact that media about us is generally happening without us.

Consulting with autistic people directly-either through an autistic led org, or autistic consultants? Doesn’t generally happen. Openly autistic actors are less likely to get roles in a lot of instances, but when there are autism specific roles they aren’t considered.

So that’s...very much a cycle. I’m willing to give some grace on a well done film or show if the main actor isn’t openly autistic, because disclosure is a thing that a lot of people *cannot do* given the discrimination autistic people face.

However, that isn’t an excuse for a show as a whole to just straight up ignore or badly research the community it’s taken the responsibility of portraying.

Autistic people are real people. The way you show us has a real impact on our actual lives. That isn’t neutral.

A show that features a nonspeaking autistic character needs the input of nonspeaking autistic people. Like, a lot of them. Directly. Not their parents or characters-THEM.

And there needs to be a lot of frank dialogue when conceiving a film where you’re representing a group of real life people about what the tropes are, and what kind of impact they have. The fact that we’ve depicted nonspeaking people consistently as not having agency?

As side characters, even in stories all about them? That has a real impact on how people in the world treat nonspeakers. It’s not just one film’s responsibility, but all films’ responsibility as a whole.

And, listen, I’m not saying that all representation has to be angelic

Nonspeaking people can be jerks, or evil, or bad, just like anyone. All autistic people can, I’m not saying you can’t show that. I’m saying you have to take responsibility for the kind of media you’re creating, and what your end messages are.

Are you showing content that implies that autism is WHY those people are bad? That their autism leads to interests that make them bad? That they’re bad because of how people treat them?

These are all different frames of reference, they imply different things.

And your media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you’re contributing to a trope noncritically, you’re sending a message too.

Like, the stories we tell make a difference in how we see each other. It isn’t neutral. It’s a huge responsibility, and it’s one we need to take seriously.

Like, listen-all kinds of stories exist about people. But I think it’s shortsighted and, frankly, unrealistic to pretend that the stories we choose to tell-especially the ones that get big platforms? Are neutral, don’t have an impact, don’t matter. They’re a huge deal.

I’m not even necessarily saying you can’t talk about, for example, caregiver abuse towards autistic people in a movie. But what are you saying about it? Who are you saying it to? And is the impact it will have on people who have actually experienced that worth convincing others?

I don’t see film makers generally caring about that or paying attention to it because, frankly, we aren’t the people they actually care about. It’s what people will buy.

And it makes me want to fucking scream.